A child weighs 44 lb and has an order for IV methylprednisol…
A child weighs 44 lb and has an order for IV methylprednisolone sodium succinate (Solu-Medrol). The order is for 0.03 mg/kg. How many milligrams of medication should be administered?
A child weighs 44 lb and has an order for IV methylprednisol…
Questions
A child weighs 44 lb аnd hаs аn оrder fоr IV methylprednisоlone sodium succinate (Solu-Medrol). The order is for 0.03 mg/kg. How many milligrams of medication should be administered?
Refer tо the figure. Whаt vertebrаe hаs undergоne cоmplete destruction?
Beverly Bаllаrd wоrked fоr the Chicаgо Park District in Chicago, Illinois. She lived with her mother Sarah, who suffered from end-stage congestive heart failure. Beverly served as Sarah’s primary caregiver with support from Horizon Hospice & Palliative Care. The hospice helped Sarah plan and secure funds for an end-of-life goal, a “family trip” to Las Vegas. To accompany Sarah as her caretaker, Beverly asked the Park District for unpaid time off under the Family Medical and Leave Act (FMLA). The employer refused. Beverly and Sarah took the trip as planned. Later, the Park District terminated Beverly for “unauthorized absences.” She filed a suit in a federal district court against the employer. The district (trial) court issued a decision in Beverly’s favor. The Park District appealed, arguing that Beverly had been absent from work on a “recreational trip.” Ballard v. Chicago Park District United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 741 F.3d 838 (2014) Circuit Judge Flaum writes the majority opinion for the court: The Family and Medical Leave Act gives eligible employees a right to twelve workweeks of leave “[i]n order to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.” 29 U.S.C. §2612(a)(1)(C). This case is about what qualifies as “caring for” a family member under the Act. In particular, it is about whether the FMLA applies when an employee requests leave so that she can provide physical and psychological care to a terminally ill parent while that parent is traveling away from home. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that such an employee is seeking leave “to care for” a family member within the meaning of the FMLA [and therefore qualifies for unpaid time off under the FMLA]. We begin with the text of the [FMLA]: an eligible employee is entitled to leave “in order to care for” a family member with a “serious health condition.”… The FMLA’s text does not restrict care to a particular place or geographic location. For instance, it does not say that an employee is entitled to time off “to care at home for” a family member. The only limitation it places on care is that the family member must have a serious health condition. We are reluctant, without good reason, to read in another limitation that Congress has not provided… Sarah’s basic medical, hygienic, and nutritional needs did not change while she was in Las Vegas, and Beverly continued to assist her with those needs during the trip. In fact,…Beverly’s presence proved quite important indeed when a fire at the hotel made it impossible to reach their room, requiring Beverly to find another source of insulin and pain medicine. Thus, at the very least, [Beverly] requested leave in order to provide physical care… The Park District describes [Beverly’s] travel as a “recreational trip” or a “non-medically related pleasure trip.” It also raises the specter that employees will help themselves to unpaid FMLA leave in order to take personal vacations, simply by bringing seriously ill family members along. So perhaps what the Park District means to argue is that the real reason Beverly requested leave was in order to take a free pleasure trip, and not in order to care for her mother. … The Park District nevertheless argues that any care Ballard provided in Las Vegas needed to be connected to ongoing medical treatment in order for her leave to be protected by the FMLA. But, like the statute itself, the regulations never use the term “treatment” in their definition of care. Rather, they speak in terms of basic medical, hygienic, and nutritional needs—needs that, as in this case, do not change merely because a person is not undergoing active medical treatment… [The relevant provision of the Code of Federal Regulations defines an employee’s care of a family member as, not only, physical and psychological care.] “The term also includes providing psychological comfort and reassurance … to a child, spouse or parent with a serious health condition who is receiving inpatient or home care.” (29 C.F.R. § 825.116 (2008)). …[S]o long as the employee attends to a family member's basic medical, hygienic, or nutritional needs, that employee is caring for the family member, even if that care is not part of ongoing treatment of the condition. We affirm the judgment of the district court. Question 1. (2 pts) What is the issue (in the form of a question) in this case? Question 2: (4 pts) Rule(s): Which two rules of law does the court use to arrive at a conclusion to the issue question above? Question 3: (4 pts) Application: How did the court apply the above rule(s) to this case? (Answer must be in complete sentences.) Question 4: (2 pts) Conclusion/Holding: What is the answer to the issue question? (Answer must be in complete sentences.)